Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

waytogoal OP t1_jas1qcr wrote

Reply to comment by HouseOfSteak in Glorifying the "self" is detrimental to both the individual and the larger world. It neither helps you find your true nature, nor your role in the larger world. by waytogoal

Then you might have misunderstood. One could develop confidence by doing meaningful things and focusing on the real-world effects of your actions, not by thinking about what successful people they are and should grow into.

Did I say there are a billion Hitlers? I exactly wrote most aren't even close, but adding the small egos of billions still wreak havoc. The biosphere collapse is the best evidence.

I don't know what you mean by "Hitler didn't go killing off tens of millions because he had some idea of who he was, he did that so he could control hundreds of millions of people." "Self" means that "master" inside his head controlling his world view, that's that.

−23

HouseOfSteak t1_jas91gp wrote

It's....honestly just better to have never included that. The argument of "Do you know who ALSO shared <this attribute>? HITLER!" is a tired one that has little validity, and your paper would not suffer from its exclusion. It doesn't help that this came out of relative nowhere - I certainly wasn't expecting to be hit with that - and then was never referenced again.

The paragraphs before this considers the ideas of working with bad data which when processed without consideration of its validity would paint an incorrect picture. The next paragraph considers the importance of what you do, rather then how you think-

-Do you know how had a solid sense of self? Hitler!-

-The paragraph after the reference refers to how humanity is well, fucked, if it doesn't recognize the concept of interdependence. Which ignores the collectivized thinking of the Nazi system, considering how it disincentivized individual thought over what was for the supposed good of the whole....which to them was the supposed German race. Which is interesting to consider, in that the man on top could very well be a megalomaniac, but the millions that supposedly held his ideals had their individuality and self crushed into something that another wanted, rather than allowed them to come to such conclusions about who they are themselves.

&#x200B;

Taking a very common personality trait (The formation of a solid ideal of the self) that can be found in the broad majority of people and associating it to one man who, outside of his speeches, book, and third-party sources we know relatively little about how he thought, and linking the two together isn't a very solid foundation.

Now, there's megalomania (which Hitler likely possessed considering his mannerisms) in which does require the exaltation of the self to a point beyond simple egomania, but the vast, vast majority of people do not exhibit megalomania (nor even garden-variety egomania) just because they've decided on who they are.

30

waytogoal OP t1_jasde4g wrote

Reading the passage about Nazi made me think you have completely missed the point. Nazis are exactly about not caring others, our interdependence and expanding a unitary self (thinking it is the right and important thing). That's why I also mention solidifying "self", "us", "One true God" are similarly dangerous.

&#x200B;

Also, you seem to have developed a strawman subconsciously for the sake of winning the argument. I never once mentioned that everyone is Hitler, I just wrote it is clear that one of the factors that contributed to Hitler's insanity is self-importance and glorifying his own way of thinking. The latter is dangerous, not just in Hitler's way, but also manifested in narcissistic, anti-enviromentalist behaviors... the list goes on.

You also seem to have conflated that giving importance to "self" means one is a thinking, responsible person, whereas if we focus on our actions, we "stop thinking" anymore. Caring about your actions exactly makes you think about the right thing - the consequence of your actions, As humans we always think, but we need to prioritise thinking certain things over others.

−11

Johannes--Climacus t1_jat3kfo wrote

Nazis Are absolutely about caring for others, acting in service of your volk is the most honorable ways to act. They weren’t interested in American b style individualism, but rather a particular group identity

You also only address the most shape conception of the self, but the existentialists (especially Kierkegaard) remind us that the essence of the self is found in your relationships and love for others. The development of the self comes first, they say, but who are you if not someone who does good for the people they love? In this conception of the self, selfishness results in the loss of the very self it aimed to improve

16

waytogoal OP t1_jb01fcu wrote

Now, I know where our communication problem arises. I think there are a lot of confusions, some people talk about selfish vs. selfless, some other people talk about having a strong sense of individual self vs. having no individual self (even in your comment first vs. second paragraph). An "individual self" is an entity having a coherent goal and desire. My discussion is more of the latter (although the two are somewhat related). Also, you have a similar logic as another commenter, basically saying that any "groupist" ideology that suppresses "individual rights" means eliminating the "selfs" in its partsand hence is "selfless" (I think it has to do with the language used by historical sociology texts).

To your other point. If you already recognize that the true essence of self is relational and an interconnected whole, why need to glorify it (which is the point)? it is what it is already. And do you really think this is how the majority of people think about "self"?

1

Johannes--Climacus t1_jbcrh0b wrote

> do you really think this is how the majority of people think about “self”?

No existentialist in the history of philosophy has held that most people are existentialists.

I didn’t mean the self was entirely relational, i said the essence can be found in relations. no existentialist would say that the self is defined by its relations, the self is defined by values — but obviously relations and values will interact, and for a Christian existentialist like Kierkegaard examination of your most important relationship will reveal a an agapic love which underlies the Christian’s existence

But even if I did hold that the self is entirely relational, you’d still need the self because without it, what are other people in relation with if not some particular “I”? A wife might be disappointed to discover she’s not actually married to anyone in particular!

1